Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

You know, the hell of it all, Yorick, is that I don't know how to feel about you. On one hand, I'm really REALLY disagreeing with some of the things you're saying... But on the other hand, you have some things to say that are akin to my own thoughts, such as more public transportation and less meat.
That being said...
I do hear what you're saying about New York... It *is* a glorious place, and I suppose that it does work... but there are some other places in the world that are horribly overpopulated. Now, if we as a species shared everything we had, there would be no starvation... but I don't think humans, as a race, enjoy sharing. Resource management needs to be rethought... but I can't see any real progress happening for several centuries. We as a race have come amazingly far in an incredibly short amount of time, but we still have a long way to go.
And it is also my opinion that giving positive encouragement is identical to negative discrimination. The result is the same: Favoring one type of person above another.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I do hear what you're saying about New York... It *is* a glorious place, and I suppose that it does work... but there are some other places in the world that are horribly overpopulated.

Which are those places? How are you defining overpopulated? Let's use concrete examples so we can dissect whether in fact they are overpopulated (whatever that means) or whether there are resource decisions that could change the way those areas work.

Now, if we as a species shared everything we had, there would be no starvation... but I don't think humans, as a race, enjoy sharing.

Then why do so many humans choose to have a child? Why do humans marry. What else is there enjoyable in life other than sharing? What good would it do to have all the money in the world, with no-one to share it with?

To the contrary, there is more joy in giving than receiving. Parenthood and marriage cost you, but can be rewarding beyond description. Both ARE sharing. Both only work if there is sharing going on. Functional and healthy humans enjoy sharing.

Resource management needs to be rethought... but I can't see any real progress happening for several centuries. We as a race have come amazingly far in an incredibly short amount of time, but we still have a long way to go.

Of course. Got to think big, speak large and dream long. The future starts now.

And it is also my opinion that giving positive encouragement is identical to negative discrimination. The result is the same: Favoring one type of person above another.

No. Negative discrimintation puts someone below status quo. Positive encouragement puts someone ahead of the rest.

As it is, hetero couples are behind the status quo if they have a child. They suffer financially. They suffer greater financial problems if one parent chooses to stay home and raise the family. Or, they incur greater losses and a decreased parental impact by choosing to pay for nannys and childminders. All this could happen as a result of an "accident". Furthermore, they suffer financial expenses in choosing to engage in contraceptive choices or abort these "accidents".

A homosexual couple has no such expenses, No need for contraceptives, and so no need to pay for abortions or child expenses should an accidental birth occur.

I believe a functioning society depends on the existence of funcational minisocieties called families. Extended families. Bound together by blood relations. Therefore I believe in supporting and encouraging the ability of those families to remain together for the duration of the individuals lives.

Is that so wrong? Am I to be lauded and despised because I believe a young married couple that accidentally have a child shouldn't be hamstrung financially or destroy three lives because they can't handle the pressure?

[ 02-10-2004, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

As it is, hetero couples are behind the status quo if they have a child. They suffer financially. They suffer greater financial problems if one parent chooses to stay home and raise the family. Or, they incur greater losses and a decreased parental impact by choosing to pay for nannys and childminders. All this could happen as a result of an "accident". Furthermore, they suffer financial expenses in choosing to engage in contraceptive choices or abort these "accidents". A homosexual couple has no such expenses, No need for contraceptives, and so no need to pay for abortions or child expenses should an accidental birth occur.

Please justify and elaborate. For $30/month in birth control and/or a $300 abortio you're willing to justify a helluva lot of rights.

[Yorick]

Those are mandatory costs. If the couple choose the alternative they incur the greater costs of having a child.

Not to mention, if they have Roman Catholic ideology, they are forced into severe moral compromises if they pursue abortion and contraception.

In short, having a child costs, the alternative costs. Homosexual couples are not forced into these predicaments.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Those are mandatory costs. If the couple choose the alternative they incur the greater costs of having a child. Not to mention, if they have Roman Catholic ideology, they are forced into severe moral compromises if they pursue abortion and contraception. In short, having a child costs, the alternative costs. Homosexual couples are not forced into these predicaments.

So you've gone from being able to possibly have children if a couple chooses as a justification to having the possibility of an accidental predicament as a justification.

First, this line of reasoning is so absurd I'm surprised I'm still at it. You are obviously turning this issue over and over in your mind while grappling with what is really prejudice. You are still starting with the conclusion and reverse-engineering a reasoning. You'll work it out in time, if you can see truly, but I guess in the meantime I'm along for the ride as a counselor to help you get where you're going.

Here's a couple -- they're mostly-lesbian bisexuals (they like to do men occassionally, but long-term can only be with a woman) with an open relationship who attend swingers parties. They have the possibility of having an "accidental" child. Moreover, they're both practicing Catholics so they don't believe in birth control of any kind. They have the exact same possibilities of the hetero couple you mentioned.

Oh, and if one of the gets pregnant, they do intend to keep the baby. No blessing should be denied. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

Now, scurry along and dream up some new "test" to distinguish these ladies and their possible predicament from your much-beloved hetero couple.

Or, just be big about it and realize your prejudice. [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

I am unmoved. I stand by my assertions.

[Timber Loftis]

Yes, well at least you've stopped trying to justify them on a rational basis. It's a good first step.

[Yorick]

Are you trying to goad me. I simply "stopped" because nothing has been said that requires me to further elaborate what I've written. Time is precious. [img]tongue.gif[/img] So there.

[Timber Loftis]

Other than furthering the discussion, I am not trying to goad (or bait) you. I proposed a lesbian couple that I think you cannot distinguish from you most recent "test" case. That's all. I'm simply challenging your prejudice

BTW, I want to discuss the notion of "prejudice." It is a common thing present in all people. We approach any situation with a pre-judgment in mind. It is the open mind and the rational mind that steps back and tries to see where the pre-judgments may lie, and change them accordingly, that overcomes prejudice.

Yorick, I think you have a preconcieved notion that a typical Ward Cleaver nuclear family is the "model" all should follow and deserves some "special protection." That is the notion you come to the table possessing, and you have been trying to distinguish that family from a family of two lesbians raising kids. Because you see the lesbian family as "different from the model" you see it as lesser. You don't know why, and this whole thread has been an exercise in your efforts to distinguish the "traditional nuclear family" and keep it elevated.

I argue it need not be elevated or "special." Two lesbians raising a child face the same trials and tribulations we all face -- other than erectile dysfunction, of course. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Joking aside, though, I simply think you need to try to clear your mind and address it without your current prejudice.

Try focusing on the children. Regardless of who or what gender their parents are, children from any loving household should have the same support and social standing, don't you think? I mean, 'tis'nt their fault.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I do hear what you're saying about New York... It *is* a glorious place, and I suppose that it does work... but there are some other places in the world that are horribly overpopulated.

Which are those places? How are you defining overpopulated? Let's use concrete examples so we can dissect whether in fact they are overpopulated (whatever that means) or whether there are resource decisions that could change the way those areas work.
*****
Calcutta, India.
China.
To name two.
*****

Now, if we as a species shared everything we had, there would be no starvation... but I don't think humans, as a race, enjoy sharing.

Then why do so many humans choose to have a child? Why do humans marry. What else is there enjoyable in life other than sharing? What good would it do to have all the money in the world, with no-one to share it with?

To the contrary, there is more joy in giving than receiving. Parenthood and marriage cost you, but can be rewarding beyond description. Both ARE sharing. Both only work if there is sharing going on. Functional and healthy humans enjoy sharing.
*****
Then why do people still starve to death? You paint a lovely picture, and I only wish it were the case universally, but it isn't.
*****

Resource management needs to be rethought... but I can't see any real progress happening for several centuries. We as a race have come amazingly far in an incredibly short amount of time, but we still have a long way to go.

Of course. Got to think big, speak large and dream long. The future starts now.
*****
I actually agree.
*****

And it is also my opinion that giving positive encouragement is identical to negative discrimination. The result is the same: Favoring one type of person above another.

No. Negative discrimintation puts someone below status quo. Positive encouragement puts someone ahead of the rest.
*****
By putting someone ahead, the rest, by definition, fall behind. It's a basic law. It's math. You can't argue with that; it's a fact. I see what you're tying to say, but try and see what I'm trying to say.
*****
As it is, hetero couples are behind the status quo if they have a child. They suffer financially. They suffer greater financial problems if one parent chooses to stay home and raise the family. Or, they incur greater losses and a decreased parental impact by choosing to pay for nannys and childminders. All this could happen as a result of an "accident". Furthermore, they suffer financial expenses in choosing to engage in contraceptive choices or abort these "accidents".

A homosexual couple has no such expenses, No need for contraceptives, and so no need to pay for abortions or child expenses should an accidental birth occur.
*****
First off, some homosexual couples adopt, and at much greater expense than hetero counterparts.
Second, heterosexual couples know what they're getting into when they have a child (assuming it's not an 'accident'.) They know they'll fall behind the status quo.
Many homosexual couples would do anything to 'suffer' the financial expenses the way straight people do, Yorick. Ask one someday. You'd be surprised.
*****
I believe a functioning society depends on the existence of funcational minisocieties called families. Extended families. Bound together by blood relations. Therefore I believe in supporting and encouraging the ability of those families to remain together for the duration of the individuals lives.

Is that so wrong? Am I to be lauded and despised because I believe a young married couple that accidentally have a child shouldn't be hamstrung financially or destroy three lives because they can't handle the pressure? [/QUOTE]To 'laud' is to sing one's praises, to acclaim. Perhaps you meant 'degraded' or 'insulted'?

And nobody's saying that should be the case, Yorick. We're saying that gay people should have the same basic rights as straight people. If a gay couple agreed to adopt, would you allow them the 'benefits' you discuss here?